Minneapolis Skyway System

[Tyler]

fuuuuuu

me like skyway

[Wedgeguy]

If you want to have a street level, then you have to create a street level. No City Center's, Block E with their blank walls along the street. New developments need to have a clear option to the street level, similar to the 2 escalators at the Target store and the Target corporate 1 tower where the persons on the street or skyway have an easy way to transition between the two. If you walk thru the skyways now you will find many dead areas with little of any activity. I would use the TCF atrium as a classic example of poor placement of escalators between levels. Being a part of the skyway system does not make for high retail customer counts and an inviting place to walk thru. I'd rather walk outside than thru some of the sections of skyways as they make me feel like I'm walking thru a dump. I don't like to walk down some street as I feel ling I'm walking along an industrial complex with no street scape. Developer need to do a better job at incorporating the street scape into their design. They also need to work to make the skyway to street area more open and accessible. The skyways themselves need to be better integrated into the design of the building and not an afterthought. Having one or the other is not mutually exclusive to the other.
I live in the land of below zero temps in the winter and some pretty rainy days. I also live in the land where we have nice stretches of sunshine and sitting outside, taking a walk, enjoying the fresh air at lunch is something that people now want to do. We as a city can make both levels livable and lively if only we make the effort to make them both happen. It is in the developers best interest to also do the same.
With the influx of new residences I see the likelihood of greater street pedestrian traffic. People are going to take the easiest way to get where they are going, which is usually the street, no snaking around thru areas that are out of the way just to be in the skyway. The people coming in from outside the core, North Loop, Loring Park, Mill District are already going to be comfortable walking at street level. it is generally the suburban office workers that are the ones who feel the need to stay in the gerbil tubes. But with the Food trucks, the outdoor restaurant seating, and improving street scape we are seeing even them decide to venture out into the realm of the real downtown. SORRY, BUT WE CAN LIVE WITH BOTH EVERY EASILY.

[mattaudio]

One remedy for Minneapolis to consider is to forge clear and user-friendly connections between skyways and sidewalks. Those could take the form of exterior elevators or stairways, along with a way-fi nding system that directs pedestrians between the street and skyway levels. Those vertical connections are critical to the mission of creating a livelier, greener and safer street life. Another approach to consider is to limit the expansion of the skyway system

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... opti-1.pdf

Isn't it strange that "limit the expansion" is an option yet we're in the midst of the biggest skyway expansion, in terms of territory covered, in two decades?

[mattaudio]

I'd rather walk outside than thru some of the sections of skyways as they make me feel like I'm walking thru a dump.

I wonder if it would be more productive for Downtown St. Paul to remove their skyways. There's less architectural integration in St. Paul compared to Mpls. It's a fragmented system that's dated and not friendly. Even compared to Mpls.

[Tyler]

No. I don't think it's strange. Ryan and Wells Fargo proposed a big ass development which *required* such expansion. Reject the skyways and you reject the proposal. You really think that was the right choice to make? Downtown minneapolis is what it is because of the businesses which are located there. Not the retail, not the entertainment or restaurants, not the residential. It's a business district. Skyways are a major asset for businesses and their workers. Do you really think downtown would be as desirable of a place to work without them? Hopefully, with a thriving CBD, we can eventually have some cool, nearby, urban neighborhoods with active streets and no skyways. But I don't think that preventing the expansion of the CBD and stifling new office developments is the prudent way to get there.

[Wedgeguy]

We can expand the skyway system within the CORE itself. As Tyler has pointed out the skyways are for the office workers mainly. There is no reason to expand the skyways into the North Loop, the Mill District, Elliot Park. But I would say that connecting the HCMC to the network would be an ok thing. I see little need to expand the skyway system past 3rd or Portland as there will probably not be office related expansion that far out. It will be up to the city, if they don't want skyways to DEMAND exceptional streetscapes along the street levels of any new developments. This would require retail be a part of the street level. This would require wide sidewalks, trees & landscaping, and even pocket parks. This needs to be a number one priority for any developer doing a building in the city. MAKE IT NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY!

[John]

I live in the land of below zero temps in the winter and some pretty rainy days. I also live in the land where we have nice stretches of sunshine and sitting outside, taking a walk, enjoying the fresh air at lunch is something that people now want to do. We as a city can make both levels livable and lively if only we make the effort to make them both happen. It is in the developers best interest to also do the same.

^^^ This is the point. It really isn't an "us versus them" argument. I've been to both Montreal and Toronto which have large underground tunnel systems connecting buildings throughout their downtowns. The systems both have retail similar to our skyways , yet both those cities have very dynamic pedestrian activity. Most of the buildings connected to the underground walkways also have prominent street frontage with retail. I'm sure the city requires this.

[RailBaronYarr]

My guess is that there isn't demand for street level activity/retail because the CBD area is mostly just that, business district. While many who live downtown (including further out areas like Loring, St Anthony, and even the North Loop) work downtown, most who work downtown don't live there (ie, they're commuting in, mostly by car, and if they are going to stop for goods on the way home it'll be near their suburban home).

I'll concede that a healthier mix of residences in or very near to downtown may be enough to cause a dual-level of activity within the CBD. Places like 4Marq, Nic on 5th, the Eclipse, etc all may be skyway connected, but those people need groceries, like to eat out, etc. If enough people are within walking distance of the CBD (or at least the outer fringes), demanding near 24/7 good/services, consumer-focused retail may very well re-populate the streets, while more professional-minded services (printing, suit/shoe repair, a few coffee places, business banking, financial advisers, the like) remain in the skyway level. However, this doesn't mean the city should focus efforts on connecting up to the semi-private spaces, or even foot the bill for network expansion (as they're doing over by the stadium, and have in the past). If the businesses benefit from this network, let them pay for it, and the city should focus their efforts (and even money) on helping buildings retrofit street-level spaces for retail and forcing better design in new proposals.

[blobs]

I've been to both Montreal and Toronto which have large underground tunnel systems connecting buildings throughout their downtowns. The systems both have retail similar to our skyways , yet both those cities have very dynamic pedestrian activity. Most of the buildings connected to the underground walkways also have prominent street frontage with retail. I'm sure the city requires this.

Bingo.

[Beachclub]

I think the skyways, with all their flaws, are some of our most vernacular architecture. That makes me hesitant to call for their removal. I do believe they could be vastly improved by better street connections and a way-finding system.

[web]

I've been to both Montreal and Toronto which have large underground tunnel systems connecting buildings throughout their downtowns. The systems both have retail similar to our skyways , yet both those cities have very dynamic pedestrian activity. Most of the buildings connected to the underground walkways also have prominent street frontage with retail. I'm sure the city requires this.

Bingo.

Totally agree. In Montreal Rue Ste Catherines is ablaze with pedestrians at all hours. I was there pre Christmas and post Christmas in the snow. People all directions multi people deep at times. and at the same time in the underground areas very busy aty the same time.

[RailBaronYarr]

Everyone here seems to agree that a huge drawback to the current system is lack of connection to the street and confusing/lack of wayfinding. Rectifying these issues are not free, and while I applaud the Downtown Council for recognizing the drawbacks they bring to downtown, their proposal is to make public the costs to fix it. If an exciting, well-traveled street is something they see as critical to keeping downtown a great place to have offices or draw in residents, but they also see the value in a skyway system (people quick to point out prices are higher), why not pay for it themselves? I don't know the exact amount, but let's say the cost of adding connections/system legibility is $30m. Should Minneapolis spend their portion of the $30m on skyway improvements or something else?

[Beachclub]

I think it would be hard to argue for Minneapolis spending any money on improving the skyways as long as they remain privately owned. Maybe a few key corridors of skyway could be made into truly publicly owned spaces with the city handling improvements, maintenance, and security. Maybe the city could charge buildings for maintaining an access to the skyways, as if it were a utility hookup or something. The skyways would, of course, have to be open 24 hours and have the same rules as public sidewalks.

I'm only half kidding. There are very few places to just exist in Downtown Minneapolis when the weather is inhospitable. I'm thinking about everybody from out of town visitors to homeless people to food truck customers.

[twinkess]

Any chance we can get TCF to update their skyway map? It still has DAYTONS(!!!) on it!

[Wedgeguy]

Not when they seem to be fleeing the building!

[at40man]

I'd rather walk outside than thru some of the sections of skyways as they make me feel like I'm walking thru a dump.

I wonder if it would be more productive for Downtown St. Paul to remove their skyways. There's less architectural integration in St. Paul compared to Mpls. It's a fragmented system that's dated and not friendly. Even compared to Mpls.

Where is it fragmented? Looking at a map, the only fragmented area I can see is the old Science Museum / McNally Smith skyway. I never really considered that a part of the skyway system, anyhow.

I don't think removing skyways would be productive for St Paul whatsoever. Nor realistic, as it would create access problems for many buildings not to mention legal issues with people who have easements on the skyway. I used to work directly on skyway level at Galtier Plaza, St Paul skyways do get a decent amount of traffic. Architectural concerns, particularly with buildings like Galtier / Cray Plaza would make this unrealistic. Only in the very core do you see a lack of street traffic, but those buildings aren't particularly remarkable either. St Paul probably doesn't need to expand the skyway system, either.

[uptowncarag]

I've been to both Montreal and Toronto which have large underground tunnel systems connecting buildings throughout their downtowns. The systems both have retail similar to our skyways , yet both those cities have very dynamic pedestrian activity. Most of the buildings connected to the underground walkways also have prominent street frontage with retail. I'm sure the city requires this.

Bingo.

Totally agree. In Montreal Rue Ste Catherines is ablaze with pedestrians at all hours. I was there pre Christmas and post Christmas in the snow. People all directions multi people deep at times. and at the same time in the underground areas very busy aty the same time.

It is absurd to compare Minneapolis with Toronto and Montreal

[web]

cold,snow,underground "malls"/skyways......not that absurd

Why can people shop outside in snow and cold in one city but need a skyway system in another

[John]

The point was that in cities with long cold winters both a climate controlled system of interior walkways between buildings and an active street level geared towards pedestrians can coexist. I guess I can't figure out what is absurd about that being pertinent to Minneapolis?

[MNdible]

I'll raise this again -- Minneapolis is a uniquely cold major city. It's significantly colder than Toronto (Montreal is close), and also significantly colder than the Scandinavian cities that people like to compare us to. It's not until you get into Russia that you'll find major cities that are colder than we are.